Level 35 Hacker

Verbose and long-winded as always

Needless to say… I was neither surprised that it was the usual retards posting and inflating things as always (I particularly enjoyed the “quote same thing and be done with it” posts)...

Nor that they’ll NEVER pbum-up a chance to use their own time to shower me with attention. Log in to see images!

Bottom-line as to the ‘ban’ itself…

I’m at best reluctant to apologize. I was not breaking any rules nor swearing-off at the mouth.

While I can certainly understand why a mod ought be allowed to work free of interruption when helping out a player…

That simply was not what was taking place at the time. Rather, I was telling a mod why I disagreed with what he did. It was only a week or two ago I remember that Duca and Jalapeno had a very long discussion in INCIT where Duca was VERY LOUDLY disagreeing with Jalapeno’s request for her to layoff the spamming. Duca, as I recall, was not terribly civil during the conversation, nor was she banned for pursuing it with persistence.

Nor should she have been.

After all, on a site where people are free to chant anything from the n-word to ‘mudkips’ to ‘fabulous person’ without relent… why shouldn’t there be room for questioning somebody’s decision-making?

Level 35 Re-Re

You were out of line. You were given multiple opportunities to take the right path, but you didn’t. When you raised an objection, you were overruled. When that happens in an actual court, you do not continue to badger the judge. You file an appeal.

Instead, you continued to question the judge, make demands, in the courtroom, instead of at the bench or in chambers, and despite several warnings, you continued to press the issue. And you were held in contempt of court.

Neither Phineas nor Spacey were out of line, and you know it. You’ve seen people temp-banned for less. The only reason it’s an ‘injustice’ this time is because it relates to you.

Level 51 Troll

ZOMBIE CANNONBALL OF GORE

also merc I for one would enjoy it if you continued your little “everyone’s an idiot but me and people who like me” crusade because it’s generating the most hilarious drama and chatlogs I’ve read in a long time.

Oh and just so you know, FWZ has hosted numerous crusaders in its time. I am reminded of Recommencer and Fenk the Evil Midnight Stabber, both of whom were widely reviled. They both left.

Level 35 Re-Re

Regardless of whether I can provide an example or not, the point still stands that you were told to stop, and you didn’t. You were told to stop by two different Moderators, and you didn’t. You were given the option to pursue your agenda along different paths, and you still didn’t.

Your primary defense seems to be that since Phineas wasn’t ‘actively’ bumisting a specific player, then the rule in question didn’t apply. This is a very weak argument, for a number of reasons.

1. The situation was occurring in INCIT, which is Phineas’s specific domain. While INCIT is running, and he is in there, he is actively bumisting players, in the general sense.

2. Phineas may have been engaged in a private conversation with another player. Since you are not privy to his private communication, you have no way of knowing whether or not he was bumisting a specific player or not.

3. As far as the rules are concerned, I bring your attention to two very important clauses:

IMPORTANT NOTE: These rules are intended as guidelines. The absence of a specific rule prohibiting a specific action is not to be considered permission to engage in that action, nor is it a defense against any consequences for said action.

In other words, if you “push the envelope” or “dance on the line,” you do so at your own risk, and accept full responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

This alone is more than sufficient in this situation.

If a moderator is trying to help someone (in IDC, Flamebate, etc.), don’t **** them off. It is at the discretion of any moderator/administrator to ban a user temporarily or permanently. Don’t make them want to.

This is the rule you keep referencing. You seem to think that the first sentence is some type of requirement clause for the rest of the rule to apply. It is not. In fact, the first rule quoted should make that perfectly clear. Just because it’s not listed as a specific rule doesn’t mean there can’t be consequences for the actions.

In fact, if you actually consider that first rule carefully, then any claim of Mod Abuse on your part is sort of ridiculous. The fact is that 99% of the time, we only take action based on those things that are specifically listed in the rules. But that is actually self-imposed limitation, not a requirement. Occasionally, we feel compelled to delve into that 1%.

In other words, you danced on the line at your own risk, and you accepted full responsibility for the consequences of those actions.